← graph

synthesis-integrate-deep

Synthesis: integrate deep research into coherent biological narrative

Metadata

Statusdone
Assignedagent-474
Agent identity3184716484e6f0ea08bb13539daf07686ee79d440505f1fdf2de0357707034c3
Created2026-04-02T03:36:20.668630034+00:00
Started2026-04-02T03:44:52.165113420+00:00
Completed2026-04-02T03:48:05.543271345+00:00
Tagssynthesis,fan-in,paper, eval-scheduled
Eval score0.91
└ blocking impact0.90
└ completeness0.92
└ coordination overhead0.92
└ correctness0.95
└ downstream usability0.92
└ efficiency0.88
└ intent fidelity0.85
└ style adherence0.90

Description

Goal

Synthesize the 4 deep research reports into a single, coherent biological narrative about PHR gene content in the context of known biology.

Input

Read the outputs from all 4 research tasks:

  • deep_research_olfactory_receptors.md
  • deep_research_dux4_frg2.md
  • deep_research_tubb8.md
  • deep_research_gtp_binding.md

Also read:

  • copy_aware_findings_summary.md — for the enrichment numbers
  • gene_copy_summary.csv — for copy counts
  • subtelomeric_analysis_report.md — for Andrea's community context

Questions to integrate

  1. How does our finding square with existing knowledge? Is any of this truly new, or is it confirming/extending what was known?
  2. Are these genes studied? For each enriched class, how well-characterized are the specific gene families? Are there gaps in knowledge we're filling?
  3. Is there a unifying theme? OR genes, DUX4, TUBB8, IQSEC3 — is there a biological logic to why THESE genes are in PHRs? Or is it purely mechanistic (they happened to be near chromosome ends when exchange occurred)?
  4. What's novel for the paper? Which findings are confirmatory (known biology) vs novel contributions?
  5. Clinical relevance: DUX4 → FSHD, TUBB8 → infertility, IL9R → asthma, OR genes → olfaction. Is there a story about disease genes in subtelomeric shared regions?

Output

Save as deep_research_synthesis.md with:

  • 5-7 paragraph narrative integrating all 4 research areas
  • A 'What's known vs what's new' table
  • Specific recommendations for paper framing
  • Key literature references

Validation

  • All 4 research areas are represented
  • Known biology is correctly attributed
  • Novel contributions are clearly identified
  • The narrative is coherent, not just 4 summaries stitched together

Depends on

Required by

Log